Syndicate content

Add new comment

April, Many thanks for your comments. I actually had no intention of making any particular point. I’m quite intrigued that you even thought that might be the case! I’m afraid there’s no getting away from it – the DHS picks up a tiny sliver of the care that a health system delivers, and is really not a good guide to the public-private mix. The WHS may not pick up everything, but it’s much more comprehensive and has very general questionnaire: if someone went to a traditional healer or to a pharmacy, they can say so. I'm surprised people ever thought they were going to get anything other than just a very partial picture using the DHS! I’m also not sure I agree with you that people misunderstand what “private” really is. I suspect people might have a fairly clear idea of what private means, and one that may make some sense. I suspect they’re thinking of a facility where users pay out-of-pocket or through private insurance, and where the provider has a high degree of autonomy on pretty much everything, is the residual claimant, and fully bears the risk associating with operating the facility. A traditional healer fits the bill as a does a Harley Street physician. By contrast, a British GP isn’t thought of as private, nor is a Canadian hospital. These lack too many of the defining features of a private facility for respondents to think of them as private: users don’t pay out-of-pocket or through private insurance; the provider’s autonomy is limited in a lot of areas; there are limits on what they can do with any profits; and their financial exposure is limited. Perhaps we can think of the map as capturing the extent of the “pure private” sector, and simply realize that what’s “public” is a bit of a hotchpotch? Best, Adam